I read Joe as claiming that if she had entered the room willingly and subsequently made no complaint of rape it was never going to be possible to prove it, not that she can't have been a victim of rape.
I already have
I've already dug it out once cos someone else couldn't be arsed to look either.
twice won't be so bad then
Well he wasn't asking me that question but I'll answer it anyway.
Thanks.
i don't know why you're surprised by that whippersnapper, pa.
That's how I read it too. Joe Reilly 's post looks dodgy but he did not say that nobody gets raped in rooms which they have entered willingly, and he didn't say that she was not raped.
Yes, just as you obviously feel about the second trial?
To me, that means he doesn't think it worth investigating, which is well dodge IMO
No. I don't disagree with the jury's conclusion about the evidence they heard, but with the decision to quash the original verdict and admit the new evidence. Big difference.
Three appeal court judges disagreed with you. And you haven't got a damn clue what went on in the jury room.
I understand your objection better now. Your honest statement that you think you'd have found them both guilty had you been a juror at the first trial is also a part of this though; underneath all the valid objections to the admission of this new evidence is something deeper and less coolheaded I think.
Did you find it problematic that a woman's sexual history was allowed as evidence?
CCTV and forensics are 'witnesses' if you like in that case. But neither CCTV or forensics are of any value whatsoever as to what actually happened between the parties in the room in the case here.
I must have missed something. Have the been accusation of the police falsifying or withholding crucial evidence? Have they been beating confessions out of people in this case? All the evidence is that cops being the utter shits they are, would be more likely to do the opposite of what you describe and fail to investigate possible rapes, rather than try and fabricate a case for one.
